Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31094048›Full record

ReviewPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety2020

A theoretical exploration of therapeutic monomania as a physician-based instrumental variable.

Brian J Potter, Colin Dormuth, Jacques Le Lorier

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Brian J PotterCardiology Service, Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montréal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0316-9026
Colin DormuthDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Jacques Le LorierPharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics Unit, Carrefour d'innovation et évaluation en santé (CIÉS), Centre de Recherche du CHUM (CRCHUM), Montréal, Canada.

Funding

CIHR DSE - 146021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo explore the utility of physician prescribing preference as an instrumental variable.

methodsExpert (non-systematic) review of relevant literature on the appropriate selection of instrumental variables and theoretical exploration of individual physician and physician group prescriber preference.

resultsAn instrumental variable must satisfy three criteria: (1) It must predict the treatment received (strength of the instrument); (2) it cannot influence the outcome other that through the treatment received (exclusion restriction); and (3) it cannot be influenced by any factor that also influences the outcome (independence assumption). Arguments in favor of prescriber preference as an instrumental variable and suggestions for how to approach specific scenarios that may be encountered are offered.

conclusionsPrescriber preference, be it of individual physicians or groups of physicians, may, under the right conditions, be powerful instrumental variables. Empiric experimental data are required to determine the appropriateness of combining propensity matching and instrumental variable analysis.

Indexed as

Confounding Factors, EpidemiologicHumansPharmacoepidemiologyPractice Patterns, Physicians'instrumental variablepharmacoepidemiologyprescribing preference

Identifiers

PMID31094048
PMCPMC6973254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.